[timey]

I just told you.

gh/c=v
vc=f
(It may be that I'm wrong in that these equations are usually c^2 in which case use c^2)

Then calculate wavelength as inversely proportional to f.

I am equating the proportions of the equation to being a time aspect by employing the speed distance time formula.

c(distance) divided by v(speed) = length of second.(wave'length')
(albeit this may be too simplistic?)

You don't need to attribute the results to a graviton and a gravitons experience of time and time dilation, just the inverse square law nature of the gravitational field and open space.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

You are assuming that graviton energy has a relation to the Planck constant h. That is a mistake. Evan said something interesting about neutrinos in another thread. They interact weakly because the target they need to hit is a fraction of the size of a nucleon. This is via the weak nuclear force. We cannot say that gravitation is not similarly connected to the strong nuclear force. So the weakness of the force of gravity may be due to the wavelength being much longer than that of the photon. Not because the energy of the graviton relates to h. The energy may well be greater than we think but just like neutrinos the interactions may be fewer.

[timey]

I do believe that the equations I gave you represent a new concept of an inverted time dilation.

If energy is stretched over slower time relative to a standard second, there will be fewer occurrences 'when' measuring via the standard second.  And the opposite if energy is compacted into faster seconds relative to a standard second.  It applies to all per second mathematics...

...And as Planck's h constant falls into the per second catagory?

Edit: it occurs that I should state terms: gh/c=v where h is height.  Where h = R, use R.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I understand the terms but that is not the issue. Let's take a scalar value represented by sigma so that sigma*h will scale the action if necessary. Of course sigma could be 1. So sigma*h*a/c^2 can be stated as the equation you require using your requirements. This assumes that the speed of gravity equals the speed of light. It also assumes a coordinate speed for gravity that is equivalent to that of light. This may or may not be the case. For your theory it helps if they differ.

[timey]

Yes - the theory requires that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.

Now where the co-ordinate speed of gravity and the co-ordinate speed of light are concerned, the energy of the gravity field clearly diminishes with distance via the inverse square law.
...and yeah, to say so it gets confusing with light because light of all frequency is gravitationally shifted.  (Hubble used a standard candle)

The energy (force?) of a gravitational field diminishes by the inverse square law, but the acceleration of a gravity field is dependant on mass, therefore for differing masses the co-ordinate speed of gravity, or acceleration of gravity would differ.  The length of any frequency of lights wavelength simply takes a longer or shorter amount of time to cover the same distance when moving away from, or into, a gravitational field, hence the longer or shorter wave'lengths', and it is the changes in the energy of the gravitational gradient causing the 'appearance' of shift in any frequency of light, and the 'appearance' of a change in the length of wavelength.  Frequency being the timing structure of the gravitational field, not the timing structure of the photon.  (ie: Doppler redshift velocities are time not distance related, and Hubble's law is challenged)

[alancalverd]

vc=f

A moment's reflection on the dimensional analysis of this statement will show you that it is nonsense.

[timey]

Aha - (chuckle) - and so we can see exactly why I am requiring help with the maths.

Come on Alan, my maths may not be correct, but my intended direction of calculation is surely obvious.  I'm trying to calculate the acceleration of gravity as an 'inverted time dilation' time aspect.  Or - the velocity of Doppler redshift as an 'inverted time dilation' time aspect.

[timey]

As I see it, from my untrained perspective:

The acceleration of gravity is given in meters per second squared.

The speed of light is 299 792 458 meters per second.

This means that the distance of 299 792 458 meters can be held constant to a second.

If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.

If we divide 1 meter by the speed of light, we can find that the speed of light covers 1 meter in 3.335+ ...is it a millionth of a second?

By adding the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity  to the distance of 299 792 458 meters and then dividing by the speed of light, we will arrive at a 1 point something measure of a meter.

Divide 1 point something meters by the speed of light.  Take this result and subtract 3.335+... from it.  The remaining fraction of a second is by how much a second gets 'longer' every 299 792 458 meters in height in the 'open space' gravitational field of the particular mass you are calculating for.

Matching these extra millionth (?) of second to extra length in wavelength of light in the weaker gravity field would of course be peachy.

[alancalverd]

If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.

No. You get 1, a dimensionless number.

If you ignore dimensions you will end up believing your own rhetoric.

According to you, a pint of water divided by a pint of water is 1 pint, and a pint of whisky divided by a pint of whisky is 1 pint, so you might as well drink whisky if you are thirsty, or water if you want to get drunk. 

[timey]

As I see it, from my untrained perspective:

The acceleration of gravity is given in meters per second squared.

The speed of light is 299 792 458 meters per second.

This means that the distance of 299 792 458 meters can be held constant to a second.

If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.

If we divide 1 meter by the speed of light, we can find that the speed of light covers 1 meter in 3.335+ ...is it a millionth of a second?

By adding the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity  to the distance of 299 792 458 meters and then dividing by the speed of light, we will arrive at a 1 point something measure of a meter.

Divide 1 point something meters by the speed of light.  Take this result and subtract 3.335+... from it.  The remaining fraction of a second is by how much a second gets 'longer' every 299 792 458 meters in height in the 'open space' gravitational field of the particular mass you are calculating for.

Matching these extra millionth (?) of second to extra length in wavelength of light in the weaker gravity field would of course be peachy.

Bearing in mind that a second of time is defined by the gravitational field, at ground level, Earth...

Calculating for a greater gravity field than earth (ie: a greater acceleration than 9.807 m/s²) would require maths that resulted in a meter be less than 1... In which case you subtract 9.807 meters squared from the higher acceleration of gravity, and minus the result from 299 792 458 meters, and then divide the result by 299 792 458 meters for a 0 point something of a meter.

Then divide the 0 point something of a meter by speed of light.  Take result and minus 3.335+ millionth of second for a negative result.  This is by how much a second is shorter in a greater gravity field to Earth.

Of course anything with mass will be GR time dilation affected in a mass in relation to mass relationship.

[timey]

If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.

No. You get 1, a dimensionless number.

If you ignore dimensions you will end up believing your own rhetoric.

According to you, a pint of water divided by a pint of water is 1 pint, and a pint of whisky divided by a pint of whisky is 1 pint, so you might as well drink whisky if you are thirsty, or water if you want to get drunk.

I see square root 1 used in many of the related calculations...

Can you please explain what dimension square root 1 is?

In any case all that comment results in is that it takes 3.335+ millionth (?) of a second for the speed of light to cover 1 meter, which is correct. (Given that millionth is correct)

And... don't mean to be funny but If you divide a number by itself all you are saying is that there is the number you are using 'amount' of 1 thing. (edit: and in the instance you comment on, that 1 thing is a meter)

Have you anything to say about any other part of the post?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Read up on dimensional analysis. Then you will see exactly what Alan means. It is one of the most beneficial things you will ever do for you understanding of physics.

[alancalverd]

Bearing in mind that a second of time is defined by the gravitational field, at ground level, Earth...

No. It is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom. Anywhere and everywhere.

[Ethos_]

Read up on dimensional analysis. Then you will see exactly what Alan means. It is one of the most beneficial things you will ever do for you understanding of physics.

The best advise anyone has given in this thread to date!!

[Colin2B]

I agree with Alan, Jeff, and Ethos about dimensional analysis, it really helps with thinking and analysis. Just to get you started:

Can you please explain what dimension square root 1 is?

It depends what units you are working in. It can be dimensionless or it can use the units you are working with eg for 1meter the units would be √m usually written m^½.

And... don't mean to be funny but If you divide a number by itself all you are saying is that there is the number you are using 'amount' of 1 thing. (edit: and in the instance you comment on, that 1 thing is a meter)

No, that 1 thing is not a meter. By dividing meters by meters you create a dimensionless ratio or scaling factor (remember Jeff talking about sigma in a different context?). This ratio can be applied to quantities that are not in meters.

It's important to get these basics in place otherwise you will either lose credibility and people will miss the point you are making, or you will mislead yourself into the wrong conclusions.

[alancalverd]

I used to teach dimensional analysis to Arts undergraduates who had never taken a public examination in any science. After about 2 hours' instruction, I set them an "A" level (university entrance) physics paper. They all achieved a pass grade - enough to start an apprenticeship - just by carefully analysing the questions. And this was in the 1960s when A levels were difficult and apprenticeships were worth having!

[timey]

Excuse me - but I defined 299 792 458 as being meters, and then divided it by 299 792 458 meters.  The answer is 1 meter.

Then I defined my use of this calculation by dividing 1 meter by the speed of light to calculate what fraction of a second it takes the speed of light to travel 1 meter.

It would appear that my first division of meters by meters is arbitrary, but it is just a means of setting the scene for the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to be added to the meters it takes the speed of light to travel 1 second.

The reason for the calculation of adding the meters per second to the meters covered in 1 second by the speed of light, is to find out how much of a fraction of a second longer it takes the speed of light to cover the distance of the 1 point something meter.

All I am doing is using the time distance speed formula to transpose the acceleration of gravity into an inverted time dilation aspect.  This concept ultimately holds distance as a constant and the rate of the 'inverted time dilation' as the variable, which means that the geometry of 'space' is flat, and it is 'inverted time dilation causing curvature,

Now then guys, in that I am 'changing the dimensions of the universe from an expanding universe to a slowly contracting universe, as per my model, if you think these 'NEW' dimensions are going to be instantly recognisable to you, then you's are not really as clever as I am giving you credit for.

If dimensional analysis is such a favourable tool, why not get involved and 'apply' it to the matter in hand without bias to the fact that the concept is new and foreign to you, instead of using the mention of dimensional analysis to discount the subject matter?

Surely this would be of more intellectual interest than the constant reminding me that my idea is not dimensionally 'usual' to your pre- conditioned pallets?

[alancalverd]

For as long as you divide apples by oranges to get chickens, nobody will take you seriously.

We know the speed of light, whether expressed in meters per second or millifurlongs per microfortnight, and the only preconception that underpins relativity is that c is constant. So far, it has worked very well.

[timey]

...and exactly what part of the fact that I am also holding the speed of light constant have you not understood?

What I am proposing would not be a possibility if the speed of light was not held constant.

[alancalverd]

Excuse me - but I defined 299 792 458 as being meters, and then divided it by 299 792 458 meters.  The answer is 1 meter.

No. 299...meters divided by 299...meters is 1, not 1 meter.

Then I defined my use of this calculation by dividing 1 meter by the speed of light to calculate what fraction of a second it takes the speed of light to travel 1 meter.

about 3.3 nanoseconds

It would appear that my first division of meters by meters is arbitrary, but it is just a means of setting the scene for the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to be added to the meters it takes the speed of light to travel 1 second.

so now you are adding meters per second² to meters. If carpet is £10 per square meter, please add ninepence and tell us what the answer means.

The reason for the calculation of adding the meters per second to the meters covered in 1 second by the speed of light, is to find out how much of a fraction of a second longer it takes the speed of light to cover the distance of the 1 point something meter.

Obviously, (nought point something)/c

All I am doing is using the time distance speed formula to transpose the acceleration of gravity into an inverted time dilation aspect.  This concept ultimately holds distance as a constant and the rate of the 'inverted time dilation' as the variable, which means that the geometry of 'space' is flat, and it is 'inverted time dilation causing curvature,

uite [possibly, but you won't demonstrate anything by muddled dimensionality.

Now then guys, in that I am 'changing the dimensions of the universe from an expanding universe to a slowly contracting universe, as per my model, if you think these 'NEW' dimensions are going to be instantly recognisable to you, then you's are not really as clever as I am giving you credit for.

what new dimensions will you be using, pray? I would recommend that you sort out the  ordinary ones first, then flip into inverted ("k") space once you have achieved dimensional balance. k-space mathematics is quite simple and selfconsistent but it won't tolerate dimensional imbalance!

If dimensional analysis is such a favourable tool, why not get involved and 'apply' it to the matter in hand without bias to the fact that the concept is new and foreign to you, instead of using the mention of dimensional analysis to discount the subject matter?

Many have tried, but you keep ignoring us.